Verse V

chu phran brgal bar mi nus des
rgya mtsho rkyal gyis ga la chod
ya rabs lugs kyang mi shes na
chos kyi de nyid ji ltar rtogs

If one is powerless to cross a small river, how can one hope to swim through the ocean?  Although of a well-respected tradition, how can one understand the essential nature of Dharma without realization?

Alternatives:

By that inability to cross a small river, how could the ocean be passed (cut) through by swimming? 

Textual Notes:

There are so many complexities in this verse.  The most striking difference between the primary and the original is the inclusion of the ergative/agentive (des) in translation.  In English it is a very awkward statement, yet it emphasizes the instrumental action of the crossing rather than the subject who is crossing (implied in the primary translation). 

As with previous verses it should be clear now that the two parts (example and simile) will sometimes mirror one another, but oftentimes they will complement each other instead.  By this I mean that information in one will be missing in the other and vice versa, but taken together the full (and sometimes paradoxical) meaning can be found.  This verse is a good example because of the construction mi + verb + na/des.  Why use des in one context and na in the other?  I think these two constructions are complementary; that is, the first two lines emphasize the instrumental (des) while the second two emphasize contextual probability (na), but since the constructions complement each other the reader should recognize that both functions apply equally to both parts.  The primary translation loses this subtlety in favor of clarity and flow because I choose to have the verses mirror each other instead of complement each other (replacing des with na). 

I was wondering why this subtlety really matters, and it seems to me that it has to do with the relationship between understanding, realization, and knowledge (explained below in Cultural Notes).  In the second two lines Gung Thang includes a subject (ya rabs lugs) in order to distinguish between knowledge (comes from belonging to a tradition), realization, and understanding.  This delineation is important for his argument and there is no getting around it, but within the extremely technical of Buddhist doctrine it is always problematic to have a subject.  Let me clarify - if we take the instrumental function of the first two lines (in which there is no stated subject) and apply it to the second two lines, we find that it is the realization itself rather than the one who realizes which leads to understanding (remember it is the crossing rather than the one who crosses in the first two lines).  This is relevant on a number of levels because it diminishes the subject.  According to Buddhism, a moment of realization is almost always synonymous with achieving no-self (and lasting understanding is synonymous with maintaining that realization of no-self).  So it is more doctrinally acurate to speak of the action of realization, not one who realizes since technically, in the moment itself, there should be no subject at all. 

To wrap up this convoluted matter, let's just say that the literary implications of des and na are interchangable, as is the inclusion/exclusion of a subject.

Next I want to point out that rtogs literally means "to grasp fully," which I translate as "to understand" in order to highlight the well-known relationship between understanding and realization.  I chose to translate shes as "to realize" for the same reasons, but it is also important to note the relationship between nus and shes as they occupy the same position in the mi + verb + des/na construction.  nus means "power" or "ability," and another translation for shes (among many) is "can" or "to be able."  This helps stress the function of realization (again, see below for a more detailed explanation) as a means to reach understanding - it empowers a person, much like an initiation.  This underlying meaning combined with the implied agentive (via complementarity) cements the idea that it is the realization itself which is instrumental in reaching understanding.

Cultural Notes:

The relationship between knowledge, realization, and understanding is a key part of understanding not only this verse but many others to come.  Knowledge, here implicated by the ya rabs lugs, will never lead to true understanding.  There is a second step - realization - which is, like I said, similar to an initiation.  Realization happens in a moment, and understanding comes from the stabilization of that moment. 

In other words, realization is irrelevant to action, while understanding is the practical application of that state of mind to daily activities.  It's the difference between looking at water (knowledge), putting a foot in (realization), and being able to swim (understanding).

And since we're on the topic of water, it's worthwhile to explore the symbolic significance of "ocean" or rgya mtsho.  In Verse I the ocean symbolized the ocean of Dharma.  Here, however, the ocean symbolizes the ocean of Samsara (the cycle of rebirth and suffering).  How can an ocean symbolize two completely different concepts?  Well, it's a common technique in Buddhism to use a paradox - in this case a symbolic paradox - in order to demonstrate the unity of two seemingly polar opposites.  In these two verses the Dharma and Samsara are identified as the same thing.

Signing off in Chengdu, Miss A.